Beat me to it. I was about to ask the very same question. --Jay(Talk) 02:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't like it and asked about it in the talk page, but when nobody responded, I decided to try it and see what the response was. I had every intention to change it back if it wasn't wanted, but it seems like you did that instead. -- Joshua 02:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

If you watch the answering machines 9-12, you'll see that it says "Version #.2", but I'm sure you knew that. Thanks for understanding. →FireBird

Yes, but as I stated in the talk page, I don't like it, and if we do that, we might as well make all the others X.0. I just don't think it's nessecary, and I think it looks worse. I understand why it was done, I just think it needs to be changed. -- Joshua 12:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

We're just following what The Brothers Chaps do. If they decide suddenly to change all Strong Bad Emails to, say, "Strong Bad Email #5.8", we would, too. The other machine's don't need "#.0" on them because they don't on the offical site, yet the 9-12 do. Again, just doing what TBC do. →FireBird

Actually, they do have Version 2.0 and Version 5.0, in the same place where Version 10.2 is. -- Joshua 12:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi there Joshua. If you are moving an article's content to the Places Strong Bad Made Up page, don't mark the article for deletion. Instead, just redirect to Places Strong Bad Made Up. Thanks. -- Tom 15:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Just noticced the problem you're having with your sig. In your preferences, make sure the box is ticked that says "Raw Signatures (without automatic link)" or similar. This should fix your sig problems. --Venusy(Talk) (Contributions), 23:05, 6 May 2005 (BST)
EDIT: And put the font tag [[After the line|HERE]].

Hey, Joshua. I was going to share this on IRC chat, but since Freenode is refusing my connection, I thought I'd share this with you for fun. I'm at Disney World, and I was at the Boardwalk, and this stand was selling Kewpie dolls. I immediately thought of Kewpie Dan. Just needed to say this. :-D --Homsar999ß 23:50, 3 Jul 2005 (EDT)

Actually, it was not I who first noticed this, but Darklinkskywalker. — It's dot com 22:46, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)P.S. If you're gonna put my name in the edit summary, notice the capitalization. I'd hate to be confused for a troll. ;) But you can call me "Dot com" for short, if you want. :)

But it was you who didn't want it to be changed to Old-Timey with everything else, because it had a verified date. - Joshua

Nah, I don't care about the actual date. 1933 just happens to be the name of the page for the pre-sound Old-Timey cartoons. That page could be called "Even More Old-Timey" and it would be just fine with me. Actually, that's a horrible title, but you get the point. My thinking on this subject is not very strong either way, but since 1933 is slightly more specific, I thought it should stay. I would, however, be interested in any suggestions or thoughts you have. — It's dot com 23:25, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Well, the page title itself reads "Old Timey." But as you said, I don't care either way. But do we even have proof that it was released in 1933 (2000)? It could very well be a 1934 thing. - Joshua

Like I said, the date itself isn't my area of expertise. Look at the Main Pages page again. I put in another link. Do you think that improves it? — It's dot com 23:51, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if that's an improvement. Either link to 1933 or link to Old-Timey, but not to both. Remember that the 1933 blatantly links to the Old-Timey page anyway. Linking to Old-Timey in the description is like... linking to something in transcript dialogue. - Joshua

Well, I see you changed it back. I don't care about this enough to really put up a good argument, but I will say once more that you seem to be fixating on the year 1933, when I'm saying that I was just linking to the page with the title "1933", because that's the page for the soundless H*R era. It's just like how "Old-Timey" used to be called "1936". — It's dot com 22:08, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well, that would have been a good arguement if it weren't for the fact that your "1936" thing is about a week late, and now supports my preference. - Joshua

Hi there Joshua. There's no need to archive the Quote of the Week page. The page is neither too long nor does it have many images on it. Thanks anyway though. -- Tom 01:56, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure? I mean, it's going to get long eventually, and the other two weeklies need archiving. I think they should be archived in a similar fashion as H*R Updates. - Joshua

Have you determined if there is community consensus for this pretty major change? I already started a discussion on the Talk:Quote of the Week page, feel free to add to it. -- Tom 02:00, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Well, I sort of did here. I only got two replies, but they were both positive and that was 2+ weeks ago. I figured I would just do all three, starting with QotW. - Joshua 02:04, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Joshua,
Yes, we're still missing some! Like i mentioned before in the discussion, I only went through 70-95 for sure on my end. That's why I put the "geddup noise approved" table, so that we could coordinate what emails had yet to be checked and where the noise was found if at all. That way we don't unnecessarily duplicate efforts and also guarantee thoroughness. Unfortunately I haven't had the chace to Finish the table (I haven't even put info on the ones I didn't find on the 70-95 range, nor are all the ones listed in the page in this table), but it's there for that purpose. TTYL --Stux 18:33, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hey, as long as you're overhauling old sbemails, can you fix problems with the {---}-type action descriptions? HRWiki:Standards#Transcript seems to me to mean that brief descriptions should stay within the character's line, without a break, and may or may not be full sentences with capatilization and a period. Longer descriptions should get a new line, and the character can start speaking again after that. Those have to be full, capped, perioded, sentences. But if it has a period it should definitely start with cap, one way or the other. (I've also been reluctant to break character's sentences; see Family Resemblence. I left a lot of fairly short, full-sentence descriptions inline because otherwise Strong Bad's sentences would be chopped up into bunches of STRONG BAD: 's.) —AbdiViklas 13:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware with how the standards work, although I missed the whole "actions more than a few words long should have their own line" part. I'll fix that up. (Also, I noticed modeling is a huge mess, I might fix that up soon) - Joshua 13:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, I think all actions that take place inside the dialogue (and not on their own line) should not be full sentences, for consistency's sake. - Joshua

In reference to your revert about Enligsh spelling, I have a general question. I am American and so are the creators of H*R, but what are the wiki standards of language. This is obviously an int'l site as JoeyDay the commander-in-chief of this wiki is an Aussie. How do we determine spelling for things such as color vs colour? From any Aussies, I'd also be interested to know if your spelling closer resemble, American or English spellings?
I R F 14:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

See here for a dicussion on this subject. And incidentally, you may want to read the second paragraph on this page as well. Username-talk 15:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

JoeyDay is an American, but this is an international site as it contains users from America, Canada, the UK, Australia, etc. Anyway, when it comes to favorite vs. favourite, do what you like, but I'm going to do it the way TBC do it. - Joshua 15:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected on Joey's country of origin. If there are any Aussie's here, I'd still be interested in how they spell? I R F

Australian English generally is a mixture of both British and American English, however leans a lot more towrads British English. For example, we spell words like: "colour", "favourite", "defence", "cheque" and use words like "lift", "tap" and "aeroplane". That's not to say that some American words aren't favoured (darn "u"!) over British words (e.g. we use "truck", not "lorry"). «Rob» 08:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Joshua... umm how can I put this. I want to create an account on fanstuff, but new user registration is disabled. And like, Ive been writing some stuff for fanstuff. So is there anyway you can help me out? —DBK! 04:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Joshua, this has to do with fanstuff. I'm making backgrounds and i need a decompiler to do it. And I know you know what it is because you decompiled the picture on space program. Sorry for bothering you. —DBK! 18:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, someone else decompiled that image, not me. But I do have a free, endless decompiler demo. Here's a bunch of websites with 'em. I don't remember exactly which one I got mine from. - Joshua 18:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, man. Oh and if you have any requests for backgrounds, just let me know. —DBK! 18:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've got a little problem, was I banned from the Fantuff? Bassium!mOCE

No, you just were missed in the movement of all good users to the "trusted" category, who are the only ones who can currently edit due to trolls. Just ask Tom or It's Dot Com to add you to the category. - Joshua 00:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I would keep fictional in this case; otherwise, we would have similar sub-heads (seeing as the "real" got dropped off of the bands and companies on the contributors page. People would do searches and get confused (do you think that somebody who is trying to access information quickly will have time to read the entire page?)

People shouldn't assume that bands and companies are real on a page about characters that are obviously fictional. Having real people and stuff on that page was a mistake. Once the memory of that mistake fades, there will be no more reason to have "Fictional Companies" than to have "Fictional Items" or "Fictional Places". - Joshua 23:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the page, I'm talking about the sub-head. The search engine works in categories. One of those categories is sub-heads. When the person does not get a page return for titles, they will look for sub-heads. Then, they will see two choices. They will pick one, read it, and close the window and get back to work. Isn't the wiki supposed to be designed for outsiders to obtain information easily (much like a newspaper)? It's the 10 minute theory: the average person today in American society (sorry if your a different nationality; this is the only statistic that I know is true) has only 10 minutes to watch the news.

Just showing you the possiblities. SparkPlug 00:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

We have a page of H*R Characters and H*R Contributors. They average user should be able to easily differentiate from the two. Plus, think about the vice versa scenario. Do we really want to stick "Real" tags onto all the subheaders of Contributors? With the theme of the pages rather obvious, I don't think its nessecary. - Joshua 00:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I got an email no, Several emails that say someone has changed my password to different gibberish things!! What happens?? Here's are the IP adresses: 200.226.137.9/200.226.137.12/200.226.137.13/210.100.138.124/212.138.64.171/212.138.64.174/
212.138.64.172/2.138.64.176/80.58.9.42/211.249.118.252/210.100.138.124/

Please calm down. A troll bot, presumably NSMC, hit us a few days ago with spam password-change mail. The discussion is here. Your password will stay what you have always had it as, as long as you don't use a new password from one of the emails. We have since shut down MediaWiki email features, so you have nothing to worry about. — Lapper (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, how are you? I wanted to know if you remember if when you posted this revision wether or not you had encountered an Edit Conflict or not (or if you're even able to remember, hopefully it's still fresh in your mind). I am asking because I had encountered similar problems when editing the Secret Pages, and I'm trying to see if this is some bug with the new Mediawiki 1.5.1 editing system. As you can see it seems that your intention was to make changes in a limited portion of the page, but there were inadvetently changes throughout the entire page. Thanks! --Stux 05:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall making those changes, and I never got an edit conflict on "portrait". - Joshua 12:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Now on to my question...From what toon did you get that great pic of whatsit? I R F 20:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I like my userspace. Although I understand why some people would dislike the colors. And the great whatsit picture came from the same place as the original: Theme Song Video, only zoomed in onto and with the background intact. - Joshua 21:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Heya Joshua... can you give me a brief rundown on what I "failed to add" when I shortened the descriptions and redid the formatting on Stinkoman 20X6 Playable Characters? I've done the same exact kinds of edits to numerous other pages, and those pages weren't reverted. I was just trying to make this page more consistent with others on the site, both in terms of formatting and the conciseness of the descriptions. — KieferSkunk(talk) — 17:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, first off I'd like to tell you that I'm a little protective of that page, as I worked so hard on it. Secondly, you simply took a lot of information out of it. Now a lot of your edit I found beneficial, but a some sections had a lot of information taken out of them, expecially the Stinkoman w/giant fist, 1-Up and Stinkowing sections. Mostly just a lot of missecallious information such as speed and shooting that apparently you thought was unneeded. - Joshua 17:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, sure. There was a lot of conversational info in those descriptions that didn't seem to directly benefit the player. The largest reduction was in the Stinkowing's description, where I basically reduced it to a functional description of what it is, what it does, and how to control it. The current description is about twice as long and contains fluff like "Gravity doesn't affect it". It was stuff like that that I was trying to cut down on. Perhaps you could just have added it back in rather than undoing the entire edit? — KieferSkunk(talk) — 18:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a merge of both versions would probably be best. For example of the bad, in the Stinkoman with giant fist section, you made his ability to block lava flows and kill enemies very vague. You also got rid of all info regarding his lack of speed and jumping power. Losing information is never a good compromise to having less text. - Joshua 18:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought that was implied, personally, but again, that info is easy to just add back in. Reading back over my edit, I see a couple other spots where that sort of info may be missing. Would you mind if I took another shot at my rewrites, keeping in mind that extra info? — KieferSkunk(talk) — 18:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you go do that, and then later today when I have more free time I'll go through it and fix anything I think still needs fixing. Keep in mind that most of the information lost was in the Fist, 1-Up and Stinkowing sections. ("Implied" info should still be recorded, for completeness' sake) - Joshua 18:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If you'd rather do it, go ahead. I don't want to step on any toes here. — KieferSkunk(talk) — 18:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want me to do it, I'll take a while, as I'm busy at the moment. And then I might forget... so if you choose not to do it and then I forget, just give me a poke. - Joshua

I took care of it. I think you'll be happy with the new text. — KieferSkunk(talk) — 18:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Why did you remove the new image from the Trogdor page? It didn't take up space, as it was in the same line. I find this image funny and I think it should be included. — Elcool(talk)(contribs) 19:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it simply was almost the same exact picture as the original, just holding an object. Hardly a "reincarnation". - Joshua 19:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You know what? Nevermind. I'll just add it to Other Costumes. — Elcool(talk)(contribs) 19:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It may be true that she was alive in the Easter Egg, but characters have been killed and then been alive in easter eggs before in TGS: See Issue 9, where So-And-So is in an easter egg even though she is a ghost at the end, and Issue 10, where all characters except for The Ugly One are killed in the toon, and then they are all killed again in an Easter Egg.
Dylnuge (Talk · Edits) 19:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

True, but those examples are cuts from the continuity of the episode, while this Easter egg appears to take place right after the wave appears. (And What's Her Face still has babies clinging onto her, as if she survived the wave.) - Joshua 20:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The Q98 Sighting was added by an anonymous contributor... Joshua only added it to the Radio Sightings page because it was him who moved it from the main Sightings page when that was split up. The second half of the sighting was later added by the same anonny. --phlipTC 14:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Boo. Remember the guy named Bloohoo that needed help getting on the HRFW forum? It's me again, and this time, I can't find the 'new topic' button at ALL! Where is it? -Bloohoo P.S. Your fanstuff rules. :D

Edit: On the regular forum, I mean. The fanstuff forum in blocked off due to the purge.

It is on the bottom left. Not quite all the way down, though. To the left of the "Page" indicator. --TheYellowDart—(t/c) 05:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)